I had to crawl on my hands and knees to get off train, says disabled woman

[WelshBluebird]

I never said she must bs lying. There’s part of the story that simply don‘t ring true.

You said that you don't believe them and then invented a totally made up by you scenario that you decided must be true - by definition that means you think they are lying.

It is very unlikely. You’ve had a passenger assists at Paddington, at least one customer host and a train manager. Again, it’s very unlikely that all of them have not realised the error. Bath is a very busy and popular station.

But similar things happen fairly often. That means it isn't "very unlikely".

One famous person is often labelled a troll or a troublemaker….. if it’s the same famous person I’m thinking of, ask the staff at Westminster tube station what they think of them!

Exactly my point. This is the attitude disabled people have to deal with. It is no wonder they often get forget about when staff have that attitude.

Presumably on the approaches to Bath there would have been PIS announcements, multiple times, saying 'passengers for Bath must be in the rear 9 coaches. Passengers in coach 1 please move back one coach'. That surely would have alerted somebody that there would be an issue before they arrived there.

I'd say this is 100% on the staff. The passenger would have fairly assumed that they would be helped off the train from that specific carriage as they were helped onto the train in that specific carriage at Paddington. However staff knowing that here was person in the wheelchair space should have known what the destination was (especially on this route where there are only actually a handful of stops for most services) and so should have been able to flag something beforehand.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I find the lack of care from the guard concerning- how do you not know about a disabled passenger onboard, or even more concerningly how is your route knowledge so bad that you don’t know where the train uses SDO.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 09:09 ==


This is just staff doing malicious compliance so they only have to do as little as possible.

No TM in the front set of a 10car IET.

 

[800001]

This is just staff doing malicious compliance so they only have to do as little as possible.

It's an auto announcer.

 

[Rail2002]

This case has uncanny echoes for me over an incident in Scotland around 1990. At that time InterCity was running a few HSTs from King’s Cross through to Glasgow Queen Street. This was to warm the market before the introduction of electric services through to Glasgow Central the following year.

A very frail individual in a wheelchair turned up at Edinburgh to travel to Glasgow Queen Street. The next train was an HST. The Senior Conductor welcomed the passenger into the rear First Class carriage, which had the only wheelchair space.

On arrival at Queen Street it was realised that the rear carriage was wholly off the end of Platform 7. There was no way that the train could be re-positioned. So, the only solution was to take the passenger back to Edinburgh. On the way the Senior Conductor had the bright idea of putting them off at Falkirk High, to reduce the passenger’s delay.

ScotRail staff at Falkirk High discovered that they had a stranded vulnerable passenger on their hands. The knew that the platform for Queen Street was completely inaccessible for wheelchairs at that time.

Whilst the staff were contacting Control to agree the next steps the passenger became extremely ill and sadly passed away. But in those days before social media the tragic story never became widely known.

Did they pass away as a result of being stranded e.g. inclement weather causing hypothermia or was it an unrelated cause? In days gone by, wheelchair passengers would sometimes be put in the brake van/parcel area.

 

[35B]

Did they pass away as a result of being stranded e.g. inclement weather causing hypothermia or was it an unrelated cause? In days gone by, wheelchair passengers would sometimes be put in the brake van/parcel area.

Indeed, and those days are rightly long gone.

 

[Chiltern 165]

It's an auto announcer.

In terms of leaving it to the last minute then blaming the computer.

 

[VP185]

You said that you don't believe them and then invented a totally made up by you scenario that you decided must be true - by definition that means you think they are lying.

But similar things happen fairly often. That means it isn't "very unlikely".

Exactly my point. This is the attitude disabled people have to deal with. It is no wonder they often get forget about when staff have that attitude.

I'd say this is 100% on the staff. The passenger would have fairly assumed that they would be helped off the train from that specific carriage as they were helped onto the train in that specific carriage at Paddington. However staff knowing that here was person in the wheelchair space should have known what the destination was (especially on this route where there are only actually a handful of stops for most services) and so should have been able to flag something beforehand.

You’re the one who is taken one side of events, like most, and believed it. There is ALWAYS two sides to a story.

I‘d day this is more on the passenger then anything else.
The Paddington assists will know what part of the train the wheelchair passenger needs to go in
The onboard customer hosts will know
The train manager will know,
and the station staff at Bath Spa will also.

The passenger claims to have been asked numerous times where they were alighting which suggests to me the staff were fully aware.

The passenger had someone meeting them at Bath Spa so they potentially demanded to be on that specific train and demanded to sit in the seats they had booked.

As I said, two sides to every story. You’ve only heard one and will assume that version as fact.

As for attitude, we've had scenarios where a well known wheelchair user has insisted on another wheelchair being removed from the train so they can have the space!

 

[Chiltern 165]

No TM in the front set of a 10car IET.

It is very concerning if nobody competant (in terms of being safety trained) knew the location (or presence) of a wheelchair bound passenger.

What happens if the train needed an evacuation?

 

[35B]

You’re the one who is taken one side of events, like most, and believed it. There is ALWAYS two sides to a story.

I‘d day this is more on the passenger then anything else.
The Paddington assists will know what part of the train the wheelchair passenger needs to go in
The onboard customer hosts will know
The train manager will know,
and the station staff at Bath Spa will also.

The passenger claims to have been asked numerous times where they were alighting which suggests to me the staff were fully aware.

The passenger had someone meeting them at Bath Spa so they potentially demanded to be on that specific train and demanded to sit in the seats they had booked.

As I said, two sides to every story. You’ve only heard one and will assume that version as fact.

I'm sure there's more to this story than is in the public domain. But I don't regard it as a given either (a) that the staff at Paddington will have known the platforming at Bath, or (b) that the passenger was unreasonable in asking to be seated where she'd been booked.

If there were evidence that she'd been unreasonable at Paddington having been given a choice, I'd be wiling to treat this as credible. But these are castles in the air, trying to create a case to allow the staff to sidestep all responsibility for their part in this collective foul up.

 

[Chiltern 165]

demanded to sit in the seats they had booked

In my opinion GWR should have to swallow this pill when they don't operate their services in the proper configuration (as in GWR should have to stop the train just to let off the passenger, before drawing forwards.)

This is exactly what delay attribution and delay fines are for.

 

[mmh]

I think some people need to remember that this is a public forum, which ranks highly in Google's search indexing, and indeed this thread is already offered as one of the first results for search terms about this incident. Victim blaming is a terrible look, do you really want it to be what you're noted for on the Internet?

 

[VP185]

In my opinion GWR should have to swallow this pill when they don't operate their services in the proper configuration (as in GWR should have to stop the train just to let off the passenger, before drawing forwards.)

This is exactly what delay attribution and delay fines are for.

They wouldn't be permitted to draw forward, irrespective of delay.

They'd be no hesitation in delaying a train to relocate a passenger to any part of the train at an intermediate station

I think some people need to remember that this is a public forum, which ranks highly in Google's search indexing, and indeed this thread is already offered as one of the first results for search terms about this incident. Victim blaming is a terrible look, do you really want it to be what you're noted for on the Internet?

It's not victim blaming. This is merely suggesting that there is ALWAYS two sides to a story. Everyone is quick to assume the train company is guilty.

 

[35B]

They wouldn't be permitted to draw forward, irrespective of delay.

They'd be no hesitation in delaying a train to relocate a passenger to any part of the train at an intermediate station

Which points reinforce the corporate failure of GWR. If the organisation knew of the potential problem, then it was on the organisation to ensure that something was done before the situation became critical. And for this purpose, each and every member of staff, employee or contractor, involved in this fiasco was a representative of the organisation and their knowledge was the organisation's knowledge.

I'm confident that no-one screwed up on purpose - but the point here is not that there were people who deliberately did this, but that together their organisation failed this woman. Badly.

 

[Chiltern 165]

They wouldn't be permitted to draw forward, irrespective of delay.

They'd be no hesitation in delaying a train to relocate a passenger to any part of the train at an intermediate station

What exactly is stopping them? Stopping a train early in the block then moving forwards does not foul the signalling.

This is a like for like case where they drew the train forwards, only difference being a camera and an assertive passenger:

 

[VP185]

Which points reinforce the corporate failure of GWR. If the organisation knew of the potential problem, then it was on the organisation to ensure that something was done before the situation became critical. And for this purpose, each and every member of staff, employee or contractor, involved in this fiasco was a representative of the organisation and their knowledge was the organisation's knowledge.

I'm confident that no-one screwed up on purpose - but the point here is not that there were people who deliberately did this, but that together their organisation failed this woman. Badly.

But you don't wether an attempt was made to rectify the situation before or during the journey for which the customer simply refused.

What exactly is stopping them? Stopping a train early in the block then moving forwards does not foul the signalling.

This is a like for like case where they drew the train forwards, only difference being a camera and an assertive passenger:

Rules, procedures, risk assessments. I doubt many TOC would authorise such a method working.

 

[Chiltern 165]

which the customer simply refused.

Citation needed.

One would think you were the disabled passnger herself by how much you claim to know about each interaction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 11:13 ==

Rules, procedures, risk assessments. I doubt many TOC would authorise such a method working.

Tough luck for the train crew - they have to do their job and get strange workings approved.

 

[VP185]

Citation needed.

One would think you were the disabled passnger herself by how much you claim to know about each interaction.

One has been on a number of complaints by passengers that have been proven to be fictitious in my career! Luckily the company I work for simply doesn't take the word of the customer as gospel and will investigate each claim.

All I'm doing is stating other possible scenarios which most seem to be immediately dismissive of.

 

[35B]

But you don't wether an attempt was made to rectify the situation before or during the journey for which the customer simply refused.

No, I don't. But nor do I know whether any attempt was made to rectify the situation, or what may have been said to the customer.

In the absence of that knowledge, I am going to go back to the basics (which as an aside do not appear to be being disputed by GWR). She was placed in a part of the train that was not platformed, she was told that her journey would be extended and delayed, had insult added to injury by being told that she'd be made to pay for the operator's failure, and then left to alight by having to crawl through the train. All of those were "never" events; the accumulation was simply unacceptable.

All I'm doing is stating other possible scenarios which most seem to be immediately dismissive of.

In a different context, this is a form of debate known as "jaqqing off". It's an old and dishonourable form debate, bearing no relationship to the honourable practice of playing devil's advocate.

 

[800001]

What exactly is stopping them? Stopping a train early in the block then moving forwards does not foul the signalling.

This is a like for like case where they drew the train forwards, only difference being a camera and an assertive passenger:

This was Kings Cross in a bay platform. No other train affected by this train being moved a couple of metres.

And the person involved would not let the train depart with out them being on board, and would position themselves in such a way that it would not be safe for the train to depart.

In the above instance it is actually very easy to arrange for the train to be moved a few metres.

After this 'incident' instructions were given to the control teams at LNER that if any 5 car sets were in reverse formation that they should not use certain platforms at Kings Cross and the signaller and NR must be told to re route into other platforms.

 

[mmh]

One has been on a number of complaints by passengers

I'm surprised!

All I'm doing is stating other possible scenarios which most seem to be immediately dismissive of.

I don't think that's all, but the point is why are you stating other scenarios? We're discussing this report, not another scenario.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I said, two sides to every story. You’ve only heard one and will assume that version as fact.

As for attitude, we've had scenarios where a well known wheelchair user has insisted on another wheelchair being removed from the train so they can have the space!

You may have had problems with wheelchair users before. They are after all only human and just as prone to the same behaviour as the rest of us. But that does not mean *this* wheelchair user has engineered a scene or is telling untruths to the media. Given the fulsome GWR apology which does acknowledge they got it wrong, on the balance of probabilities the general thrust of the wheelchair user's story ought to be believed here.

 

[Chiltern 165]

This was Kings Cross in a bay platform. No other train affected by this train being moved a couple of metres.

Would anyone be affected by a stopping train holding for 2 minutes before going to the appropriate car stop?

 

[AlterEgo]

It is very concerning if nobody competant (in terms of being safety trained) knew the location (or presence) of a wheelchair bound passenger.

What happens if the train needed an evacuation?

There is a Lead Host who is trained to specifically be in the front set. I expect their role is fundamental here. They don't sign the route, if I recall, so they may well not know the passneger would have difficulties at Bath Spa.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Did they pass away as a result of being stranded e.g. inclement weather causing hypothermia or was it an unrelated cause? In days gone by, wheelchair passengers would sometimes be put in the brake van/parcel area.

I’m not sure what the purpose of asking this question is, given that it relates to a different case over 35 years ago. Nevertheless, having had a lot of experience with elderly, infirm and frail relatives I can assure you that quite small things can prove fatal. Delay in obtaining regular medication being just one obvious possibility.

This all goes to emphasise the importance of getting it right first time. As soon as it degenerates into “you’ll have to get the next train/you’ll have to double back via [Bristol]” or whatever things can rapidly spiral out of control.

 

[VP185]

You may have had problems with wheelchair users before. They are after all only human and just as prone to the same behaviour as the rest of us. But that does not mean *this* wheelchair user has engineered a scene or is telling untruths to the media. Given the fulsome GWR apology which does acknowledge they got it wrong, on the balance of probabilities the general thrust of the wheelchair user's story ought to be believed here.

The fulsome apology is just standard stuff. It avoids a public dispute. Simple as that.

 

[Djgr]

They wouldn't be permitted to draw forward, irrespective of delay.

They'd be no hesitation in delaying a train to relocate a passenger to any part of the train at an intermediate station



It's not victim blaming. This is merely suggesting that there is ALWAYS two sides to a story. Everyone is quick to assume the train company is guilty.

GWR have investigated it. They admit that they were guilty. Your approach to this is completely wrong and really quite appalling.

 

[VP185]

I'm surprised!

I don't think that's all, but the point is why are you stating other scenarios? We're discussing this report, not another scenario.

Absolutely. A customer, a member of public doesn’t get what they want and a complaint generally follows. Its the way it has always been.

Again. The report is one version of the events. Seems people and selective on what reports that want to believe.
You don’t sit on a jury and here one sides allegation and then make a decision on wether a defendant is guilty. You hear both before giving a verdict.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 11:51 ==

GWR have investigated it. They admit that they were guilty. Your approach to this is completely wrong and really quite appalling.

Have they? If you have the link to their investigation then please post it.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fulsome apology is just standard stuff. It avoids a public dispute. Simple as that.

In my experience that is not the case. There are some cases which are "he said she said" which are resolved by way of apology, but a response of this sort for a case like this doesn't feel like that.

They took several months to investigate, have apologised for specific failings, and made a specific apology. I used to write complaint responses like this for a TOC, and I am extremely familiar with how these complaints progress internally. There's a difference between "I am sorry for your experience" and "we had to get X and Y right and we didn't, and this was entirely avoidable".

 

[TUC]

What seems to be missing in the responses by the staff, and in some of the comments here, is a lack of recognition of a need for someone to take the initiative, that regardless of who should have contacted who, there is now a passenger in a wheelchair unable to disembark at her planned destination, and someone needs to take the lead in putting the parts together and get the situation rectified. Situations like this are as much about initiative and soft skills as they are about formal responsibilities,

 

[VP185]

In my experience that is not the case. There are some cases which are "he said she said" which are resolved by way of apology, but a response of this sort for a case like this doesn't feel like that.

They took several months to investigate, have apologised for specific failings, and made a specific apology. I used to write complaint responses like this for a TOC, and I am extremely familiar with how these complaints progress internally. There's a difference between "I am sorry for your experience" and "we had to get X and Y right and we didn't, and this was entirely avoidable".

“They took several months to investigate”.

That’s an assumption! To dispute it simply isn’t a good look. Accept, chuck some compensation and the matter is considered resolved.

Been involved and known people to be involved in “investigations” and they’ve never been consulted or even “spoken to”